tiltbillings wrote:That is not a rebuttal; not even close. That is an informal logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Nonsense. Amongst Theravādins the Psm. is a valid source of knowledge. And since the Buddha's omniscience is also maintained by the Sarvāstivāda and Dharmaguptaka sects, it is a teaching upheld by every living ordination lineage.

Buddhism is not a secular philosophy. There is no valid means to either prove or disprove the Buddha's knowledge through logic or epistemology, short of attaining buddhahood oneself. The Buddha's knowledge is accepted based on scriptural authority and commentarial testimony, which are sources of refuge.

tiltbillings wrote:Appealing to the Psm does not show that my textual analysis is wrong in any way. At best all that does is shows that what I said does not agree with a particular, after the death of the Buddha text, that is championing a particular interpretation.

There is no Buddhist tradition which denies that omniscience was a part of the Buddha's awakening.

tiltbillings wrote:That is not a rebuttal; not even close. That is an informal logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Nonsense. Amongst Theravādins the Psm. is a valid source of knowledge. And since the Buddha's omniscience is also maintained by the Sarvāstivāda and Dharmaguptaka sects, it is a teaching upheld by every living ordination lineage.

You don't get it. While the Psm may be an authoritative texts among Theravadins, but that does not mean that it is accurately reflecting the suttas on every point in every detail. It might be, but that is for you to show, since that seems to be your claim. I am simply looking at the suttas, not at some text written sometime after the death of the Buddha. Also, I have been looking at the question of bodhi in the suttas, not omniscience. You have yet to show in the suttas that omniscience is tied directly, without question, to bodhi as a defining aspect of bodhi. This omniscience question is yours, not mine, and what I am looking at is what is in the suttas say, and the Psm is not a sutta. It is, rather, a later sectarian interpretation of the suttas. The Psm does not rebut what I have said, it not being a sutta, unless it shows in the suttas a clear, unquestioned, connexion of omniscience as being a defing aspect of bodhi. Show us that is the case.

tiltbillings wrote:Appealing to the Psm does not show that my textual analysis is wrong in any way. At best all that does is shows that what I said does not agree with a particular, after the death of the Buddha text, that is championing a particular interpretation.

There is no Buddhist tradition which denies that omniscience was a part of the Buddha's awakening.

Show us in the suttas where bodhi is tied directly, unequivocally as a defining aspect of awakening

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:You don't get it. While the Psm may be an authoritative texts among Theravadins, but that does not mean that it is accurately reflecting the suttas on every point in every detail. It might be, but that is for you to show, since that seems to be your claim.

You're the one making provocative statements explicitly asserting a view that opposes the received tradition. Therefore the onus is entirely on you to show that you are right and the tradition is wrong. You can't prove that: "The "enlightenment" -- bodhi -- of the arahant is no different from that of the Buddha," based on text-critical analysis. Nor can you prove that the doctrine of six types of buddha knowledge that are not shared by disciple arahants postdates the Buddha's parinibbāna. For that matter, you can't even prove that the Psm. was composed after the death of the Buddha. Your entire premise is based on speculation. A conceptual house of cards.

tiltbillings wrote:Also, I have been looking at the question of bodhi in the suttas, not omniscience. You have yet to show in the suttas that omniscience is tied directly, without question, to bodhi as a defining aspect of bodhi.

Your penchant for textual literalism on this issue is both amusing and rather ironic, given that you vehemently object to criticisms of Burmese Vipassanā that employ the strategy of rejecting it because terms such as "momentary concentration" or the technique of "labeling" aren't explicitly stated in the suttas.

tiltbillings wrote:You don't get it. While the Psm may be an authoritative texts among Theravadins, but that does not mean that it is accurately reflecting the suttas on every point in every detail. It might be, but that is for you to show, since that seems to be your claim.

You're the one making provocative statements explicitly asserting a view that opposes the received tradition.

I have simply reported what is said in the suttas, but I did not know that the suttas were provocative. You have not shown that what I said opposes the Theravada.

Therefore the onus is entirely on you to show that you are right and the tradition is wrong.

I am not claiming that the tradition is wrong, assumely your portrayal of it is accurate, which you have yet to establish. I am simply making a claim about what the suttas say, which is not a claim about what the tradition says about itself.

You can't prove that: "The "enlightenment" -- bodhi -- of the arahant is no different from that of the Buddha,"based on text-critical analysis.

I think I have gone some fair distance in showing that that claim is in line with what the suttas say, which is all I am claiming. Also, I am not doing "text critical analysis." I am doing basic textual exegesis.

Nor can you prove that the doctrine of six types of buddha knowledge that are not shared by disciple arahants postdates the Buddha's parinibbāna. For that matter, you can't even prove that the Psm. was composed after the death of the Buddha. Your entire premise is based on speculation. A conceptual house of cards.

Can you prove Psm was composed by Ven Sariputta? Can you show that the "double miracle" of water and fire are part of the sutta tradition? I'll go with the scholarship on this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patisambhidamagga

tiltbillings wrote:Also, I have been looking at the question of bodhi in the suttas, not omniscience. You have yet to show in the suttas that omniscience is tied directly, without question, to bodhi as a defining aspect of bodhi.

Your penchant for textual literalism on this issue is both amusing and rather ironic, given that you vehemently object to criticisms of Burmese Vipassanā that employ the strategy of rejecting it because terms such as "momentary concentration" or the technique of "labeling" aren't explicitly stated in the suttas.

This is not, of course, an argument.

Actually, I asked more than once that you show that omniscience is a necessary defining aspect of bodhi in the suttas.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:I think I have gone some fair distance in showing that that claim is in line with what the suttas say, which is all I am claiming.

Okay, so what do you propose this knowledge described in AN 4.24 is the result of? AN 4.24:

Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know.

What do you propose this ability to know others' faculties is the result of? SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

Ñāṇa wrote:Okay, so what do you propose this knowledge described in AN 4.24 is the result of? AN 4.24:

Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know.

The cosmos is the all; whatever is in the all, that the Buddha directly knows. This is true of arahants as well, per MN 1.

Ñāṇa wrote:What do you propose this ability to know others' faculties is the result of? SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

Is the eye of an awakened one the same as the divine eye?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:The cosmos is the all; whatever is in the all, that the Buddha directly knows. This is true of arahants as well, per MN 1.

Are you sure? Do you yourself have direct knowledge of what the Buddha is referring to in this passage from AN 4.24?

daverupa wrote:Is the eye of an awakened one the same as the divine eye?

The term used in SN 6.1 is buddhacakkhu. If SN 6.1 were referring to the divine eye, why wouldn't it explicitly say so, given that the divine eye is a specific type of higher knowledge described in detail elsewhere in the suttas?

MN 95 wrote:There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views.

If a person has conviction, ...likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is my conviction...,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.

Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.

"The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth."

Bharadvaja was talking about a received tradition, same as you have been.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:Bharadvaja was talking about a received tradition, same as you have been.

A noteworthy passage from the sutta:

Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas.

The second part of the AN. 4.24 paricope is also likely punning on another of Yājñavalkya’s views which posits:

“It is not out of endearment (kāmāya) for the husband that the husband is dear (priya), but of the endearment of the self that the husband is dear.” (‘na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati, ātmanas tu kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati…’)

And the same for wife, sons, cattle and other things and stations the materialist would identify with in life, viewed that:

daverupa wrote:Bharadvaja was talking about a received tradition, same as you have been.

A noteworthy passage from the sutta:

Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas.

Yet according to you,

Ñāṇa wrote:[The] premise that dhamma principles can be sufficiently analyzed by exclusively relying on sutta strata materials is faulty.

this was an impossible instruction, since the Psm. did not yet exist.

___

Ñāṇa wrote:Are you sure? Do you yourself have direct knowledge of what the Buddha is referring to in this passage?

This question cuts both ways, and therefore nullifies both of our attempts at citation. Also, this equally applies to the author(s) of the Psm. It seems we both benefit from the teaching on the preservation of truth.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

tiltbillings wrote:I think I have gone some fair distance in showing that that claim is in line with what the suttas say, which is all I am claiming.

Okay, so what do you propose this knowledge described in AN 4.24 is the result of? AN 4.24:

Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know.

...

My understanding, and the point that I thought Tilt was making, was that:

1. The Arahant's awakening/liberation from Samsara/whatever you want to call it/ is the same as a Buddha's. He is fully liberated.

2. A Buddha has some extra skills, as in the Suttas you quoted, because he had to develop them to become a Buddha.

opinion that, "The "enlightenment" -- bodhi -- of the arahant is no different from that of the Buddha," [is] an example of modernist secular revisionism that has no precedent in the history of Theravāda Buddhism.

which means he disagrees with 1.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Are you sure? Do you yourself have direct knowledge of what the Buddha is referring to in this passage?

This question cuts both ways, and therefore nullifies both of our attempts at citation. Also, this equally applies to the author(s) of the Psm. It seems we both benefit from the teaching on the preservation of truth.

Can I infer from your lack of a direct answer that you do not have direct knowledge of what the Buddha is referring to in that passage?

daverupa wrote:Yet according to you,

Ñāṇa wrote:[The] premise that dhamma principles can be sufficiently analyzed by exclusively relying on sutta strata materials is faulty.

this was an impossible instruction, since the Psm. did not yet exist.

Are you suggesting that oral commentary which was not included in the sutta collections didn't exist at that time? I think that scenario is rather unlikely.

mikenz66 wrote:My understanding, and the point that I thought Tilt was making, was that:

1. The Arahant's awakening/liberation from Samsara/whatever you want to call it/ is the same as a Buddha's. He is fully liberated.

2. A Buddha has some extra skills, as in the Suttas you quoted, because he had to develop them to become a Buddha.

I don't see any contradiction...

The distinction of your second point has been highlighted by the Theravāda (and most every other Buddhist tradition) as an important part of the Buddha's awakening. These qualities are specific knowledges unique to the Buddha. The Paṭisambhidāmagga describes six such knowledges:

[1] What is the Perfect One's knowledge of penetration of others' faculties (indriyaparopariyatta ñāṇa)?

Here the Perfect One (tathāgata) sees beings as with little dust on their eyes, as with much dust on their eyes, as with keen faculties, as with dull faculties, as of good parts, as of bad parts, as easy to instruct, as hard to instruct, and also some who see fear in the other world and in what is censurable, and also some who see no fear in the other world and in what is censurable....

[2] What is the Perfect One's knowledge of beings' biasses and underlying tendencies (āsayānusaya ñāṇa)?

Here the Perfect One knows beings' biasses, he knows their underlying tendencies, he knows their behaviour, he knows their resolutions, he knows beings as capable and incapable....

[3] What is the Perfect One's knowledge of the Twin Metamorphosis (yamakapāṭihīra ñāṇa)?

Here the Perfect One performs the Twin Metamorphosis, which is not shared by disciples. He produces a mass of fire from the upper part of his body and a shower of water from the lower part of his body: he produces a mass of fire from the lower part of his body and a shower of water from the upper part of his body....

[4] What is the Perfect One's knowledge of the attainment of the Great Compassion (mahākaruṇāsamāpattiyā ñāṇa)?

Upon the Enlightened Ones, the Blessed Ones, who see in many aspects, there descends the Great Compassion for beings.

The second part of the AN. 4.24 paricope is also likely punning on another of Yājñavalkya’s views which posits:

“It is not out of endearment (kāmāya) for the husband that the husband is dear (priya), but of the endearment of the self that the husband is dear.” (‘na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati, ātmanas tu kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati…’)

And the same for wife, sons, cattle and other things and stations the materialist would identify with in life, viewed that:

tiltbillings wrote:I think I have gone some fair distance in showing that that claim is in line with what the suttas say, which is all I am claiming.

Okay, so what do you propose this knowledge described in AN 4.24 is the result of? AN 4.24:

Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know.

What do you propose this ability to know others' faculties is the result of? SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

Now, show us where the Buddha directly defined the above as aspects of bodhi?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:I think I have gone some fair distance in showing that that claim is in line with what the suttas say, which is all I am claiming.

Okay, so what do you propose this knowledge described in AN 4.24 is the result of? AN 4.24:

Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know.

What do you propose this ability to know others' faculties is the result of? SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

Now, show us where the Buddha directly defined the above as aspects of bodhi?

That isn't an answer. I'll ask again: What do you propose this knowledge described in AN 4.24 is the result of? AN 4.24:

Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know.

What do you propose this ability to know others' faculties is the result of? SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.